City Of American Canyon Online Community Forums

I know that there is a state mandate obligating/forcing all counties to build and/or allocate a certain number of designated affordable housing units.

I recognize given the very high cost of housing (in California), that even families with household incomes otherwise considered middle-class would qualify for affordable housing assistance programs.

My point is not all designated affordable housing units necessarily go to low-income, unskilled people/families. We all have read in the press about teachers, police officers, and even college professors who cannot afford housing in the Bay Area.

That said, it is not fair for just one area or town to deal with this particular obligation. This can place an undue burden on a community and depress property values especially when an entire complex is designated low-income and tenants are not carefully screened.

We now have 2 apartment complexes being proposed (Napa Junction & AmCan Rd/hwy 29), and I am very concerned as to how many of the units will be reserved for low-income housing. Renatal apartments are of far greater concern than designated homes/condos that are sold below market rates to qualified applicants.

I would like to know how much of the affordable housing obligation the rest of the county is being pressured to take on. Especially Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. Since these towns have such a high number of vineyard and restaurant employees who would qualify as being low-income, shouldn't they also do their part to help Napa County meet it's affordable housing obligation? It's only right!

Napa couldn't find an area that residents would except for low income housing. Last year in the land trade agreement our wonderful city council agree to take on all the rest of Napa's low income housing to meet the federal guidelines. I believe the number of low-income houses to be built is 394. (I have heard that we may include low-income housing that has already been built a part of that number. I haven't checked out the facts on that.) This low-income housing thing is just another screw job by our current city council who couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag.

Stacy---Are you sure that the affordable housing requirement for all of Napa County is only 300 or so? I was aware of the "trade" that was made by our illustrious city council, so that they could annex some additional land.

They should have resisted and finally forced Napa County(or the other cities) to take on something that is required but usually considered undesirable by residents.

I find it remarkable that after all the years Am Can was used, abused and neglected by the county (we're still living with the unfortunate legacy from that time) that our city council would agree to something like this.

Napa already has some affordable housing, but many of my friends who live in Napa long before I moved here told me that the county was having problems placing their low income housing units because nobody wanted them.

The balance of low-income housing is what we agreed to. Do a search on the Napa Register to find the exact amount.

Just a reminder people that "low income, affordable housing" is a mix of police, fire, teachers, one income families, winery workers, newspaper writers, small shop owners, disabled, grandparents, single parents, preachers, preschool workers, hair stylists, it goes on and on. All of which are good neighbors, hardworking citizens. Which of the above would be a horrible thing to have in our Community? I hope none.

Thanks for the last post it is enlightening.

Remember, unless any of us have lived her for +50 years---we intruded into someone's idea of paradise. If you have children (as I do) then their noise was probably not welcome by older, retired residents.
If your dog barks, it may bother your neighbor. If you smoke and your smoke drifts over the fence (like my neighbors does) ..it may bother you.

We can go on and on. Acceptance and Tolerance are the key words we need to keep in mind.

Well, contrary to popular opinion, I think the low income housing project approved by the council over in Vintage Ranch will be well managed. The company seemed to have their act together and are owner builders. I am not certain of the prudence of putting a large low income housing project next to million dollar homes, but, it does appear the quality of the project will be consistant with the neighborhood. From what i have seen, this will likely be the best of the low income projects within the city.

Contrast that with the 35 prefabricated homes that were approved off Theresa lane, on the base of Oat Hill, which has at least 9 low income properties to be sold and managed by napa housing authority( or a similar agency). Banks do not like such projects, adn neither do I. Given that each owner of hte Oat Hill is involved in a master plan, its unclear how this spot zoning for this project makes any sense what so ever. But, the council apparently believed it did make sense. The owner apparently doesnt now, as they are selling hte project.

It is my hope that our new planning director will get his arms around this and that the revisions to the masterplan put some congruency in the overall vision. There are some great projects on the horizen.

As for Oat Hill, there are some very real issues regarding hte FAA, safety from both jet and light aircraft, and development along the flight patterns and inthe zones of safety. This may be the biggest barrier to this project and limit just what can and cannot work there.

With the ongoing building, I think we will aborb most of this low income housing well, and the number of units although large, if spread out in the city will blend well. IF they are all condensed in one area they must be very well managed. The ideal is to spread them out in the community. HOwever, here again, short sidedness. Most developers today include some price restricted and deed restricted units- but in AC, for the most part they all paid the ridiculously low in leiu of fees, because that was much cheaper to do.